Can sheer size give a person a false impression of MA effectiveness?

Without going into specifics, I've seen a couple of martial arts clubs lately which train in arts that I'm not particularly fond of and which seem to train in what looks to me like a rather unproductive fashion (lots of flowery arm waves and excessively scripted scenarios). They're clubs that sometimes train in the gym that I go to, so I've sort of half-watched the classes as I've been exercising.

But one thing that stands out to me is that the senior students and teacher are all big, beefy guys with arms like tree trunks.

Would this be the sort of thing that raises any eyebrows for you?

I can imagine that some people would look at it and think "Those guys look big and strong and tough - they must be great martial artists and so that must be a good school".

But I wonder if being big and strong and tough can give you false sense of the effectiveness of your martial arts training. I'd rather see some skinny people with good technique proving that the training is effective rather than all the black belts being big guys/gals who, even with no martial arts training, would probably be able to knock out the rest of the class through sheer size and strength.

Don't get me wrong, the best martial artists often are physically strong as it contributes to their martial abilities, but I wonder if it can be easy to overestimate the effectiveness of less-than-effective training if you are simply the strongest person in the room and you're actually just testament to the effectiveness of weight training rather than MA training.

 

It's that old adage of not being able to but muscles on your chin. Being a huge body builder isn't really going to harm anything until you get really serious and can only help, especially if you're strong too.
True champion can take a beating though, not just give one. Unfortunately I don't thing that can be altered?
You have to bear in mind I like Topgear and power is everything!

 

That's a good point, but do you really think that "tenacity" or whatever it's called (the ability to take a beating and keep going) is something you're born with rather than something you build up through experience or training?

 

It's impossible to agree or disagree since you won't go into specifics. No idea what form of training you'r referring to. But overall, size does make plenty of difference. There is a reason we have weight divisions.

 

I think you can either take a punch or not. I don't think it's anything you can learn. Literally some people can?
Everything else is only good but if you can't knock then out then they'll get you in the end? Grappling and that advantage is massively reduced but it's still there.

 

You're probably on to something with that actually.

The thing is though, I'd probably argue that good technique is just using what strength you have in an efficient manner to get a particular result, be it a throw or a kick or anything similar. So I guess by extension, if you are strong (even more so if you look strong - i.e: have big muscles, etc) and have crap technique, you can replicate the effect of a good technique without actually having the skill to pull it off properly. Plus looking strong is a good selling point to a lot of people.

Does that make sense?

I know from personal experiences I can throw/perform techniques that appear to have greater effect than many of the people of the same grade as me in Aikido (I'm only 5th kyu when I say this mind) just because I am bigger and stronger than the rest. Some locks I've just muscled on even though the technique has been off.

 

Physical appearance SHOULD have no bearing on fighting ability. Unfortunately cavema genetics don't agree. Hence why people lift weights after being bullied so that people will stop.

 

I've always wondered about this too. I would have assumed though that you can learn to overcome the shock (and to some degree the pain) of being punched though, which I would guess is half the battle. I could be wrong though.

 

I don't think the giant Semmi Schilts dominance in K1, even his in his own weight division, is proportionate to his actual techniqual proficency. Technique will only get you so far.

 

I think it mostly occurs with folks who aren't too interested in competing. I train with a couple big guys, one who's consistently on the competition circuit, one who is a bit more chillaxed about competing. Same rank, same build, blah blah blah. The competition guy rolls very clean, rarely uses any of his strength at all, even when going for a sub, if you defend it, he's not gonna press the issue. Other guy powers through everything. All of his sweeps send me flying through the air, which sounds impressive, but it's not something you could pull off against a larger dude, nor does it allow you to capitalize on the sweep.

 

Let's face it, big biceps will intimidate most people (at least to some degree).

 

I think most people would argue that technique will take you a whole lot further than being strong will.

 

I would agree with that.

 

There's another guy however who's even worse technically (talking in relative terms here) - Choi Hong-man.

This is a pretty funny qoute from Le Banner: "He is dangerous, his knees are already almost at the level of my head, he's not human! But he's a good guy and I like him, he's very tough, maybe the strongest guy in K-1, and he has hard bones -- when I kicked him, it hurt my leg!"

 

I'd say that some of the best technical developments I've made have been when I've been weak post major surgery and I've had to use correct biomechanics rather than strength to make things work.

 

Just look at boxers, name one with a glass jaw
Wish that worked now but there are many
If your going down with one good punch you ain't a world beater.

 

Both is better though